Food Quality and Preference 76 (2019) 81–90

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Quality and Preference

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

Visual attractiveness depends on colorfulness and color contrasts in mixed T

salads
Maija Paakkia, , Mari Sandellb, Anu Hopiaa
⁎

a
Functional Foods Forum, Seinäjoki Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Turku, 20014, Finland
b
Functional Foods Forum, Faculty of Medicine, University of Turku, 20014, Finland

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The aim of the study was to investigate the impact of color and color combinations on visual attractiveness in
Color in food food. Ten salad mixes were composed to represent pale-colored salads with no color contrasts and colorful salads
Color combinations with high color contrasts. A consumer study was conducted to discover the kind of color combinations that are
Color contrast seen as visually attractive in salad mixes. The salad portions were photographed and the photographs were
Color measurement
introduced in the consumer study (n = 93). In addition, the color values (L*, a*, b*) of the salad compounds
Food choice
were measured using digital image analysis. The color dimensions chroma, saturation, vividness, depth and hue
angle were calculated. The total color differences and the maximum differences between the salad components’
color values and color dimensions were calculated to describe the color contrasts in the salad portions. The
results of the study indicated that colors and color combinations impacted visual attractiveness and that colorful
salad portions with high color contrasts between salad components were more attractive than pale-colored
salads with no color contrasts. Saturation and depth of color were the color dimensions associated with at-
tractiveness. Color contrasts with the complementary colors red and green and with light and dark colors were
preferred, along with high total color differences. The colorfulness and the color contrasts were associated with
freshness, variability and complexity, and consequently with attractiveness. The improvement of visual attrac-
tiveness in food using intensive colors and stimulating color combinations is one potential way to tempt con-
sumers to choose and consume more vegetables.

1. Introduction
Food perception is a multisensory experience involving sight, taste,
smell, hearing, and touch. In most situations of everyday life, visual
perceptions are said to be the leading sensorial impression from the
environment. Similarly, food is usually first explored by vision (for
example, Imram, 1999; Schifferstein, 2016). The concept ‘visual ap-
pearance of food’ consists of many attributes, such as color, shape,
texture, gloss, size and variety. Visual signals from food are found to
influence attractiveness, sensory quality, aesthetics, anticipated safety,
willingness to accept the product, liking of flavor, food selection and
food intake (Cardello, 1996; Clydesdale, 1993; Hernandez Ruiz de
Eguilaz et al., 2018; Hutchings, 1999; Imram, 1999; Wadhera &
Capaldi-Phillips, 2014; Zellner, Loss, Zearfoss, & Remolina, 2014).
In everyday eating situations, there are usually many colors and
many color combinations to be evaluated at the same time. In meals
and dishes, foodstuffs are usually mixed with each other to create dif-
ferent color combinations. The appearance and color of food dishes are
generally very complex and varied. However, the attractiveness and
meaning of color combinations in food itself are rarely investigated.
Mielby, Kildegaard, Gabrielsen, Edelenbos, and Thybo (2012) in-
vestigated the relationship between visual preferences and perceived
complexity for vegetable and fruit mixes. They found that color con-
trasts in food had a large effect on perceived complexity: the fruit and
vegetable mixes with low color contrasts were evaluated unexpectedly
low in complexity and the mixes with high color contrasts were eval-
uated unexpectedly high in complexity. For the vegetable and fruit
mixes, the visual preference increased with increasing perceived com-
plexity. In addition, they found that the subject’s optimal level of
complexity depended on age, gender, and the frequency of consuming
the products in the mixes. In addition, the influence of colors in pre-
sentations and settings on food preference have been confirmed by
many researchers, e.g., Michel, Velasco, Gatti, & Spence, 2014;
Piqueras-Fiszman et al., 2012, 2013; Stewart & Goss, 2013; Zellner,
Lankford, Ambrose, & Locher, 2010; Zellner et al., 2014. However, in
everyday eating situations, such as workday lunches, the presentation

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: maija.paakki@utu.fi (M. Paakki).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.04.004
Received 12 December 2018; Received in revised form 8 April 2019; Accepted 9 April 2019
Available online 10 April 2019
0950-3293/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Paakki, et al.
of food consists of standard plates (typically white), containers (typi-
cally white, steel or transparent glass) and cutlery (typically steel).
Therefore, the food itself plays a significant role in visual attractiveness.
In our study, we focused on colors, color combinations and the visual
attractiveness of the food served. Mixed vegetable and fruit salads were
selected as sample materials because they are the typical side dishes at
lunch, providing a variety of colors.
In aesthetic science, the attractiveness of color combinations is
widely studied, and attractiveness is found to be based on the balance
and harmony of the colors and their combinations. (Hård & Sivik, 2001;
Zellner et al., 2010). Deng, Hui, and Hutchinson (2010) investigated
consumer preferences for aesthetic color combinations using two dif-
ferent perspectives: the visual coherence perspective and the optimal
arousal perspective. The main principles of visual coherence were si-
milarity and unity, and the color relationships that should increase
aesthetic preference are stated to be ‘identical matches’ (i.e., the same
point in the color space) and ‘closely related’ (i.e., very close in the
color space such as different shades of the same color) (Deng et al.,
2010). The optimal arousal perspective is based on Berlyne’s theory
(Berlyne, 1970) that aesthetic preference is determined by the arousal
potential of a stimulus, and it states that distinct colors (moderately
distant from each other such as red and yellow) should be preferred.
Neither perspective predicts that complementary colors, such as green
and red, should be the most preferred combination (Deng et al., 2010).
According to Schloss and Palmer (2011), color preference ratings in-
crease as hue contrast with the background increases, but color pairs
with highly contrastive hues are generally not preferred.
In addition to the color differences, i.e., hue, saturation, and light-
ness, the preference for individual colors varies according to personal,
object-based, contextual and cultural differences (e.g., Hurlbert & Ling,
2017; Palmer, Schloss, & Sammartino, 2013). Color preferences are
derived from the individuals’ cultural, empirical and educational
background. According to the ecological valence theory (Palmer &
Schloss, 2010), people like colors associated with objects they like (e.g.
blue, associated with the sky), and dislike colors they associate with
objects they do not like (e.g. brown, associated with rotten food). In
general, Western adults prefer cool colors (e.g., blue) to warm colors
(e.g., red) (Palmer et al., 2013). Conversely, in food the color blue is
rare and usually not liked, whereas the colors red, yellow and green are
the most common and best liked (Hutchings, 1999; Spence, 2018;
Walsh, Toma, Tuveson, & Sondhi, 1990). Lee, Lee, Lee, and Song (2013)
have investigated human color preferences for vegetables and have
found bright and vivid colors (colors with high chroma; saturated
colors) to be preferred. According to Palmer et al. (2013), in general,
Western adults prefer colors of higher saturation to colors with lower
saturation. In food, both sensory and hedonic expectations are found to
be based on colors and fulfilling/unfulfilling of these expectations
greatly affects the liking of food (e.g., Deliza & MacFie, 1996; Spence,
2015). In addition to the colors in food, the colors of the surroundings
have an effect on the experience. According to Stroebele and De Castro
(2004), the colors of an eating environment have an influence on food
choice and preference, and colors are found to have an important im-
pact on people’s affect, cognition, and behavior (e.g. Elliot & Maier,
2014).
There are three essential factors for color perception: the object, the
viewer, and light. Color is a sensation triggered by electromagnetic
radiation (light) that reaches the human eye. This radiation arrives at
the eye either directly or reflected from a surface (object). The human
eye contains color receptor cells which are sensitive to different wa-
velengths between 380 and 800 nm (Lübbe, 2008). Receptor cells
convert radiation into nervous stimulation which is transmitted to the
brain, where it is experienced as color. Color sensation is the perception
in the brain that results from the detection of light after it has interacted
with an object (Lawless & Heymann, 2010, chap. 12). Along with the
color dimensions of the object, the final color sensation in the human
brain is dependent on the lighting and surrounding colors (e.g.,
82
Food Quality and Preference 76 (2019) 81–90
Hasenbeck et al., 2014; Piqueras-Fiszman, Alcaide, Roura, & Spence,
2012). In addition, color sensation is affected by the physiological
properties of the viewer, such as color deficiency.
In the color measurements of food, L*a*b* is the most used color
space due to the uniform distribution of colors and because it is very
close to the human perception of colors, i.e., the distance between
different colors represented in the L*a*b* color space corresponds ap-
proximately to the color difference perceived by the human eye (Hunt &
Pointer, 2011; León, Mery, Pedreschi, & León, 2006; Wu & Sun, 2013).
L* is the lightness component and a* and b* the chromatic components
(a* from green to red, and b* from blue to yellow). These components
are used to calculate three basic dimensions of color: hue, chroma and
lightness (Crozier, 1999; Pathare, Opara, & Al-Said, 2013). Hue is the
attribute of color traditionally defined as reddish, greenish, etc. How-
ever, it has been noticed that, in addition to hue, the other dimensions,
chroma and lightness, may have a great impact on evaluations and the
visual aesthetics of colors and color combinations (Crozier, 1999;
Palmer et al., 2013). Chroma is the degree of difference of a hue in
comparison to a grey color with the same lightness (Pathare et al.,
2013). However, according to Cho, Ou, and Luo (2017) chroma has
relatively poor consistency in visual perceptions, and saturation is the
term more familiar to ordinary viewers. Saturation is defined as “the
proportion of pure chromatic color in the total color sensation” (Lübbe,
2013). In addition, Berns (2014) has introduced other variables to de-
scribe colors: vividness (the degree of departure of the color from a
neutral black color) and depth (the degree of departure of the color
from a neutral white color). According to Berns’s definition, high values
of vividness correspond to ‘clean’ and ‘bright’ colors, and low values to
‘dull’ and ‘dirty’ ones. The term ‘depth‘ is associated with the strength of
the color, higher values of depth representing ‘stronger’ colors and
lower values ‘weaker’ and ‘paler’ colors.
The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of different color
values and dimensions of color combinations on the visual attractive-
ness of food using mixed salad as the sample material. The color of the
salad components was measured by digital image analysis using L*a*b*
color space, and the color values were used to calculate color dimen-
sions (chroma, saturation, vividness, depth, hue angle). In addition, the
differences between the salad components’ color values and color di-
mensions were calculated in order to describe the variation of colors in
the mixed salads. The pictures of the salad portions were used in the
consumer study to evaluate the visual attractiveness of the salads.
Mixed salads were chosen as the sample material because they are fa-
miliar and common vegetable dishes at Finnish lunch buffets.
2. Materials and methods
The sample materials in this study were mixed vegetable and fruit
salads representing typical lunchtime side salads. Differently colored
mixed salads (either pale-colored components with no color contrasts or
colorful components with high color contrasts) were composed in order
to investigate the relationship between colors, color combinations and
the visual attractiveness of the salads. These salads were photographed,
and the photographs were then used in the consumer study for evalu-
ating their attractiveness. The colors of the distinct salad components
were measured using digital image analysis.
2.1. Salads
Five salad pairs (pale-colored salads (A) and colorful salads (B))
were composed of ingredients that were as identical as possible re-
garding taste and structure, differing only in color (Table 1). The
weights of the corresponding salad components in each salad pair (A, B)
were equal, as well as the sizes of the corresponding salad components.
Both salads in every salad pair had the same salad base that was either
iceberg lettuce, napa cabbage, lettuce or frisée. The salad base was
completed by adding three or four components to create no color
M. Paakki, et al. Food Quality and Preference 76 (2019) 81–90

Table 1
Components of the pale-colored (A) and colorful (B) salads.
PALE-COLORED SALADS Components Color contribution COLORFUL SALADS Components Color contribution

Salad 1A: iceberg lettuce (150 g) green Salad 1B: iceberg lettuce (150 g) green
Lactuca sativa var. capitata Lactuca sativa var. capitata
cucumber (90 g) green tomato (90 g) red
Cucumis sativus Solanum lycopersicum
bell pepper (green) (60 g) green bell pepper (red) (60 g) red
Capsicum annuum Capsicum annuum
cauliflower (70 g) white broccoli (70 g) dark green
Brassica oleracea var. botrytis Brassica oleracea var. italica
pine nut (25 g) light beige pumpkin seed (25 g) grey
Pinus pinea Cucurbita pepo

Salad 2A: iceberg lettuce (150 g) green Salad 2B: iceberg lettuce (150 g) green
Lactuca sativa var. capitata Lactuca sativa var. capitata
pear (canned) (100 g) light yellow papaya (canned) (100 g) orange
Pyrus communis Carica papaya
sweet corn (30 g) yellow pea (30 g) green
Zea mays Pisum sativum var. sativum
grape (light green) (100 g) light green grape (dark red) (100 g) dark red
Vitis vinifera Vitis vinifera

Salad 3A: frisée (50 g) light green Salad 3B: frisée (50 g) dark green
Cichorium endivia var. crispum Cichorium endivia var. crispum
lettuce (50 g) light green lettuce (50 g) dark green
Lactuca sativa var. crispa Lactuca sativa var. crispa
honeydew melon (100 g) light yellow watermelon (100 g) red
Cucumis melo var. inodorus Citrullus lanatus
pumpkin seed (10 g) grey pecan (10 g) brown
Cucurbita pepo Carya illinoensis

Salad 4A: napa cabbage (150 g) light green Salad 4B: napa cabbage (150 g) light green
Brassica rapa subsp. pekinensis Brassica rapa subsp. pekinensis
cauliflower (70 g) white broccoli (70 g) dark green
Brassica oleracea var. botrytis Brassica oleracea var. italica
pineapple (canned) (90 g) yellow peach (canned) (90 g) orange
Ananas comosus Prunus persica
honeydew melon (90 g) light yellow watermelon (90 g) red
Cucumis melo var. inodorus Citrullus lanatus

Salad 5A: napa cabbage (150 g) light green Salad 5B: napa cabbage (150 g) light green
Brassica rapa subsp. pekinensis Brassica rapa subsp. pekinensis
lettuce (20 g) light green lettuce (20 g) dark green
Lactuca sativa var. crispa Lactuca sativa var. crispa
pear (canned) (100 g) light yellow papaya (canned) (100 g) orange
Pyrus communis Carica papaya
pea (20 g) green sweet corn (20 g) yellow
Pisum sativum var. sativum Zea mays

contrasts (salad A) or to create high color contrasts (salad B). The
corresponding complementary salad components were, for example,
green and red bell pepper, cauliflower and broccoli, red tomato and
green cucumber. The mixed salads used in the study represent common
salad ingredients and common salad mixes typical of Finnish lunch
buffets.
The salads were prepared in a restaurant kitchen. The samples of
each salad component were taken for color analysis immediately after
the required preparation (washing, peeling and cutting). The salad
components were mixed, and the portion of each salad was set on a
white ceramic plate (Ø 19 cm). The salad portions were photographed
under the normal serving circumstances at the restaurant. The photo-
graphs were printed (18.5 cm × 12.5 cm) and used as sample pictures
in the consumer study (Fig. 1).
2.2. Consumer study
2.2.1. Study design
The photographs (n = 10) of the different mixed salads (Fig. 1) were
coded with three-digit random numbers and presented coincidently in a
random order. Every participant evaluated the photographs and filled
out the questionnaire at his/her own separate table. Volunteers
(n = 93) were asked to rank the pictures of the salad portions according
to the attractiveness of the salad from 1 (the most attractive) to 10 (the
least attractive). Finally, volunteers were asked to argue in their own
words for their choice of the most and the least attractive salad. In-
ductive content analysis (Tuomi & Sarajärvi, 2009) was used to code
and categorize the arguments into different thematic groups.
In addition, information on demographic factors (gender and age)
and an agreement to participate in the study were requested on the
same sheet as the evaluation of attractiveness of salads was assessed.
2.2.2. Subjects participating in the consumer study
The participants in the inquiry were randomly recruited from
among people passing the lobby of the university. Participation in the
consumer study was wholly voluntary and the entire procedure was
carried out according to the guidelines in the Declaration of Helsinki
(2013). To confirm their agreement to participate in the study, the
volunteers were asked to tick the box on the sheet.
The volunteers for participation in the study were students or staff
of the University of Tampere, Finland. 100 volunteers participated in
the inquiry, and 93 replies were accepted for the study. 7 replies were
rejected due to incomplete or missing information: such as the same
salad being ranked several times, permission not being confirmed, or
the age of the participant not being reported. 66% of the participants
were female (n = 61) and 34% male (n = 32). The average age of the
participants was 27 years (median 23 years; from 19 years to 62 years).
Most of the participants (67%) were from 20 to 25 years.

83
M. Paakki, et al. Food Quality and Preference 76 (2019) 81–90

Fig. 1. The photographs of the salad portions. In the consumer study, the photographs of the mixed salads (pale-colored salads 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, and 5A; colorful salads
1B. 2B, 3B, 4B, and 5B) were coded by three-digit random numbers.

2.3. Color measurements
2.3.1. Color values
The colors of the salad components were measured in L*a*b* color
space by digital image analysis. The instrument (Cheos Ltd., Espoo,
Finland) consisted of a digital camera: Go-5, Qimaging Ltd.; Zoom-lens:
Computar M62 1212–35; lamps: Osram Dulux L 36 W/865; and image
analysis software: Image Pro Plus 7.0, “Color Lab”. The color values (L*,
a*, b*) of each salad component were a mean of nine measurements (all
three partial samples were measured three times). The circular area of
each color measurement was adjusted to cover the area of one piece of
the salad component.
2.3.2. Calculated color dimensions
The color dimensions: chroma (C*), saturation (S+), vividness (V*),
depth (D*) and hue angle (h*), were calculated to describe the color
properties (especially the intensity of the colors) of the salad in-
gredients. The formulas used for the calculation of color dimensions
were:
calculated in order to estimate the color contrasts between the salad
components.
2.4. Statistical analysis
The relationship between attractiveness and color contrasts in
mixed salads was tested with the Partial Least Square (PLS) method
(Unscrambler 9.8, Camo Process AS, Oslo, Norway). The X-variables
(predictors) were the factors describing color contrasts between salad
components (maximum differences between color values and color di-
mensions, and maximum total color differences) and the Y-variable
(predicted) was the attractiveness of a mixed salad.
The significance of difference between the attractiveness of salad
pairs (pale-colored and colorful salads) was tested using non-parametric
Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test. The dependence between the ranking of
the salad and demographic factors (gender, age) was tested using the
non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis Test). IBM SPSS Statistics, version 24
(SPSS, Inc., an IBM Company©Copyright 1989, 2016 SPSS) was used
for the statistical analyses.

C* = SQRT ((a*)2 + (b*)2), according to Pathare et al. (2013)

S+ = C*/ (SQRT ((C*)2 + (L*)2)) × 100%, according to Lübbe
(2013)
V* = SQRT ((L*)2 + (C*)2), according to Berns (2014)
D* = SQRT ((100 – L*)2 + (C*)2), according to Berns (2014)
h* = tan−1(b*/a*), according to Pathare et al. (2013)
2.3.3. Factors describing color contrasts in the salads
To describe the color variation between salad components in a
single salad portion, the total color differences (ΔE) between the salad
components were calculated:
ΔE = SQRT ((Δa*)2 + (Δb*)2 + (ΔL*)2), according to Pathare et al.
(2013)
In addition, the differences between the salad components’ color
values (L*, a*, b*) and color dimensions (C*, S+, V*, D*, h*) were
3. Results
3.1. Consumer study
The results of the ranking of the salad pictures (from 1 = the most
attractive to eat, to 10 = the least attractive to eat) are stated in
Table 2. The mean of the salad’s ranking was discovered to depend on
the gender (Kruskal-Wallis Test; p = 0.019) only in one salad (4B). The
males ranked salad 4B as more attractive (the mean of ranking being
5.2) than the females (the mean of ranking being 6.5). No dependence
between the mean of the salad’s ranking and the age of the participants
was detected.
According to the Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test, the attractiveness
ratings differed significantly (p < 0.001) within the individual col-
orful/pale-colored salad pairs. Within every salad pair, the colorful
salad was evaluated as more attractive than the pale-colored one.
Table 3 states the frequency of the evaluations of the salads as ‘the most

Table 2
The means of rankings (from 1 = the most attractive to 10 = the least attractive) of the salads and the significance of difference (non-parametric Wilcoxon Signed-
Ranks Test) between pale-colored salads (A) and colorful salads (B).
PALE-COLORED SALADS Ranking mean ± sd COLORFUL SALADS Ranking mean ± sd Sig. of the difference between pale-colored and colorful salads

Salad 1A 5.6 ± 2.33 Salad 1B 3.4 ± 2.53 p < 0.001

Salad 2A 5.9 ± 2.28 Salad 2B 3.2 ± 2.20 p < 0.001
Salad 3A 6.6 ± 2.63 Salad 3B 3.7 ± 2.56 p < 0.001
Salad 4A 8.2 ± 2.14 Salad 4B 6.1 ± 2.43 p < 0.001
Salad 5A 7.5 ± 2.01 Salad 5B 4.8 ± 2.51 p < 0.001

84
M. Paakki, et al. Food Quality and Preference 76 (2019) 81–90

Table 3
The frequency of the evaluations of attractiveness in the salads (pale-colored salads (A) and colorful salads (B)).
the most 2nd most 3rd most 4th most 5th most 6th most 7th most 8th most 9th most the least
salad attractive attractive attractive attractive attractive attractive attractive attractive attractive attractive
(count) (count) (count) (count) (count) (count) (count) (count) (count) (count)

1A 4 8 8 13 7 13 17 14 9 0
1B 27 19 12 9 7 5 5 2 6 1
2A 2 5 10 10 9 18 15 10 10 4
2B 28 16 13 14 9 6 2 2 1 2
3A 1 6 7 10 8 11 11 9 12 18
3B 21 20 14 8 10 7 2 5 2 4
4A 0 1 3 1 7 12 5 11 10 43
4B 1 7 12 5 13 11 14 12 12 6
5A 0 2 2 6 7 6 15 18 25 12
5B 9 9 12 17 16 4 7 10 6 3

Table 4A
Thematic categories and count of codes of the open-ended arguments for the least attractive salads. n is the count of the replies (the proportion: females/males) where
the salad was chosen as the least attractive. An individual reply may have more than one code, depending on the extent of the argument.
PALE-COLORED SALADS Ingredients Appearance Taste Leathery Healthy Filling No variation Boring Excess lettuce

Salad 1A (n = 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Salad 2A (n = 4; 3/1) 3 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
Salad 3A (n = 18; 14/4) 5 12 5 0 0 1 6 7 1
Salad 4A (n = 43; 26/17) 33 27 9 1 1 0 1 3 0
Salad 5A (n = 12; 9/3) 11 5 3 1 0 1 1 3 0

attractive’, ‘2nd most attractive’ etc. arguments for salad 1B).

The open-ended arguments for the most attractive and the least
attractive salads provided by the participants were analyzed. The count
of codes and thematic categories for the salads are stated in Table 4A
(the least attractive salads) and Table 4B (the most attractive salads).
83% of the participants presented their arguments for the least attrac-
tive salad, and 92% for the most attractive salad.
The most frequently used arguments were either the ingredients of
the salad or the appearance of the salad. Most of the participants (61%)
argued for their choices differently, for example the most attractive
salad was argued for by appearance and the least attractive salad by
ingredients or vice versa, or only one of the choices was argued for.
20% of the participants (9 females, 10 males) used ingredients as an
argument for both of their choices, 13% (11 females, 1 male) used both
ingredients and appearance, and 5% (3 females, 2 males) only ap-
pearance.
Of all the arguments describing appearance, approximately two-
thirds discussed color, and particularly the colorfulness of the salad.
The arguments for the most attractive salad were about colorfulness,
diversity and freshness, whereas the arguments for the least attractive
salad were about colorlessness, lack of variety, unfreshness and dull-
ness.
Of the salad ingredients, particularly pecans (15 arguments for salad
3B) and dark red grapes (13 arguments for salad 2B) were used to argue
for the most attractive salad. The other components used by more than
two volunteers to argue for the most attractive salad were water melon
(7 arguments for salad 2B, and 7 for salad 3B), seeds (5 arguments for
salad 1B), broccoli (4 arguments for salad 1B), bell pepper (2 arguments
for salad 1B, one for salad 2B and one for salad 3B), and nuts (3
The component most frequently given as a reason when explaining
the choice of least attractive salad was cauliflower (13 arguments for
salad 4A). The only other component used by more than two volunteers
to argue for the least attractive salad was the canned fruits (2 argu-
ments for salad 4A, and 2 for salad 5A).
3.2. Color measurements
The measured color values (L*, a*, b*) and the calculated color
dimensions (C*, S+, V*, D*, h*) for every salad component are stated in
Appendix A (pale-colored salads) and Appendix B (colorful salads).
The positive values of parameter a* represent the reddish colors of
the salad ingredients and the negative values greenish ones. The mea-
sured values of a* ranged from −21.7 (green frisée salad) to +36.6
(red bell pepper). In pale-colored salads (A), the only positive a* values
(reddish) were detected for pine nuts (+5.6) and for sweet corn
(+2.2). In colorful salads (B), most of the ingredients, except the salad
base, had positive a* values. The positive values of parameter b* re-
present yellowish colors and the negative values bluish ones. The
measured values of b* ranged from 18.8 (dark red grape) to 71.8
(peach) and 72.3 (sweet corn). No negative values of b* representing
bluish colors were detected. The parameter L* is a measurement of
lightness from 0 (black) to 100 (white). The smallest L* value noticed
was 24.3 for dark red grapes and the highest value of 94.4 for white
cauliflower.
Cauliflower represented a pale-colored component and it was found
to have the lowest values for chroma (22.4), saturation (23.0) and
depth (23.1) of the color. Of the colorful components, dark red grapes

Table 4B
Thematic categories and count of codes of the open-ended arguments for the most attractive salads. n is the count of the replies (the proportion: females/males)
where the salad was chosen as the most attractive. An individual reply may have more than one code, depending on the extent of the argument.
COLORFUL SALADS Ingredients Appearance Taste Fresh Healthy Filling Many-sided Balanced Clear

Salad 1B (n = 27; 18/9) 28 20 4 0 1 3 7 1 0

Salad 2B (n = 28; 17/11) 32 20 6 3 1 0 4 2 1
Salad 3B (n = 21; 14/7) 31 14 2 8 0 1 0 0 0
Salad 4B (n = 1; 0/1) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Salad 5B (n = 9; 6/3) 3 11 0 2 0 0 2 0 0

85
M. Paakki, et al. Food Quality and Preference 76 (2019) 81–90

Table 5
The factors describing color contrasts in salads: maximum variation in color values (L*, a*, b*), maximum variation in color dimensions (C*, S+, V*, D*, h*), and
maximum total color differences (ΔEmax) between the components of the salads (pale-colored salads (A) and colorful salads (B)).
salad L*max-L*min a*max-a*min b*max-b*min C*max-C*min S+max-S+min V*max-V*min D*max-D*min h*max-h*min ΔEmax

1A 30.9 23.1 21.0 22.8 39.5 38.1 42.9 2.92 52.2

1B 39.1 47.4 11.5 15.7 28.0 27.9 27.8 2.77 62.2
2A 15.0 15.1 26.8 26.8 18.3 19.2 25.7 2.26 29.9
2B 52.1 48.3 30.9 28.1 27.5 49.8 31.2 2.37 66.8
3A 32.7 19.3 17.8 21.0 24.4 30.6 24.2 0.33 33.6
3B 18.6 47.5 3.7 10.1 16.0 16.9 14.8 2.30 48.7
4A 5.4 11.4 34.5 34.5 28.0 14.4 33.0 1.60 34.6
4B 25.0 48.6 34.7 28.5 22.6 28.4 29.0 2.70 52.5
5A 38.9 17.9 8.6 10.7 24.8 31.6 23.0 0.51 40.1
5B 34.7 43.7 29.7 29.2 33.2 32.8 32.9 2.41 50.4

had the highest saturation (77.7) and depth (81.8) values, peach the
highest chroma value (73.8), and sweet corn the highest vividness value
(110.2).
To describe the color contrasts in the salads, the differences between
the salad components’ color values and color dimensions were calcu-
lated. Table 5 states the maximum differences found in each mixed
salad.
In addition, the total color difference (ΔE) between the salad com-
ponents was calculated. Table 5 presents the maximum total color
differences between the salad components in the mixed salads. A total
color difference higher than 3 is stated to be a very distinct difference
between colors (Pathare et al., 2013). The maximum differences be-
tween colors in every mixed salad were over 29, representing clearly
detectable color differences. For every salad pair, the maximum ΔE
value was higher for the colorful salads than the pale-colored salads.
3.3. Dependence between color measurements and attractiveness
Predictions between the factors describing color contrasts (max-
imum differences between color values and dimensions, and maximum
total color difference) and attractiveness in the salads are stated in
Fig. 2. Partial Least Square (PLS) analysis indicated that 73% variation
in the factors describing color contrasts explained 49% variation in the
attractiveness in the salads.
According to the PLS analysis, the colorful salads (3B, 1B and 2B)
were evaluated as more attractive compared to the pale-colored salads
(4A and 2A). The exact counts of the evaluations are stated in Table 3.
Of the analyzed factors, the maximum total color difference (ΔEmax),
the maximum difference between a* values (a*max − a*min) and the
maximum difference between L* values (L*max − L*min) were the
strongest predictors for attractiveness in the salads. Those salads having
great variation in colors, especially those with both green and red in-
gredients along with dark and light colors, were considered to be at-
tractive.
For the most attractive salad (2B), the chroma values of the salad
ingredients, with the exception of the salad base, ranged from 30.6 to
58.7, the saturation values from 68.5 to 77.7, the depth values from
69.2 to 81.8, and the vividness values from 39.2 to 77.6. The corre-
sponding color values for the least attractive salad (4A) were 28.8–63.3
for chroma, 31.2–59.2 for saturation, 31.9–64.9 for depth, and
92.7–107.0 for vividness. Generally, the saturation values and the
depth values were higher for the more attractive salads compared to the
less attractive salads. The opposite trend was noticed regarding the
vividness values as the less attractive salads had higher vividness va-
lues.
4. Discussion
4.1. The relationship between the colors of the salad components and visual
attractiveness
Those salads with intensively colored components were evaluated
as more attractive than those salads with pale ingredients in every salad
pair. In particular, the saturation values and the depth values of colors

Fig. 2. Multivariate Partial Least Square (PLS) regression correlation loadings plot expressing how the factors describing color contrasts in the salads (maximum
differences between color values (L*, a*, b*), maximum differences between color dimensions (C*, S+, V*, D*), and the maximum total color difference (ΔEmax))
predict attractiveness in the salads.

86
M. Paakki, et al.
were found to correspond to the attractiveness in salads. The saturation
values (S+) and the depth values (D*) were higher in the most attrac-
tive salads compared to the least attractive salads (Appendices and
Table 2). Both these terms: saturation and depth, describe the perceived
intensity of the color. Saturation describes the satiety of the color, and
the depth of the color is defined as indicating the deviation from a
neutral white color. Increasing depth corresponds to a ‘stronger’ color
(Berns, 2014), and increasing saturation corresponds to a higher degree
of saturation of the color (Lübbe, 2008).
The trend with the vividness values (V*) was the opposite, the most
attractive salads having lower vividness values compared to the least
attractive salads. This derives from the definition of vividness we used
in our study – that vividness describes the deviation from a neutral
black color (Berns, 2014). Therefore, light and ‘white’ colors have high
vividness values, and dark and ‘black’ colors low ones. In our study, the
lower vividness values corresponding to darker colors were evaluated
as more attractive.
According to our results, the relationship between attractiveness
and saturation was more apparent than the relationship between at-
tractiveness and chroma. Lee et al. (2013) investigated color pre-
ferences in vegetables and fruits and found foods with high chroma
values to be the most preferable. They described high chroma value
colors as vivid colors. In our study, the definition of vividness was
different because we used the definition by Berns (2014) that ‘vividness
is the deviation from the neutral black color’. We found the vividness
and the chroma values acted quite conversely with ’white’ colors, such
as in cauliflower, which has low chroma values, 22.4 and 28.8 but high
vividness values, 97.1 and 92.7. With darker colors, such as dark red
grapes, the chroma value (30.6) and the vividness value (39.2) were
closer to each other. However, similarly to Lee et al. (2013), we found
colors described as intensive, vivid or ‘strong’ to be the most attractive.
In the study by Lee et al. (2013), only chroma, not saturation, was in-
vestigated because they modified only the values a* and b* and light-
ness (L*) was kept fixed. In our study, we used natural salad compo-
nents with a variation of all color values (a*, b* and L*), and we
investigated both chroma and saturation. The value of saturation also
depends on chroma and lightness. Saturation is defined as describing
the relationship of chroma to the complete perception of color (Lübbe,
2008). Cho et al. (2017) criticized chroma as being confusing and
having a relatively poor consistency in visual perceptions. They found
the color depth value by Berns (2014) agreed well with the visual result
of saturation.
According to the open-ended arguments in our study, the attrac-
tiveness of salads with intensive colors was associated with freshness.
There was an obvious difference between the least and the most at-
tractive salads. Although all the salad components were equally fresh,
the least attractive pale-colored salads were described as being
leathery, whereas the most attractive colorful salads were described as
being fresh. In vegetables, bright and vivid colors are generally asso-
ciated with freshness and pleasantness (Lee et al., 2013).
In addition, one reason for the attractiveness of intensively colored
salads could be their tendency to draw attention. This is in accordance
with the optimal arousal perspective (Deng et al., 2010), according to
which the aesthetic preference is associated with the arousal potential
of an object. According to Hagtvedt and Brasel (2017), saturated color
stimulates arousal and even increases the perceived size of objects
compared to identical objects with less saturated color.
4.2. The relationship between color combinations in mixed salads and visual
attractiveness
In our study, high total color difference (ΔE), the complementary
colors green-red (high difference between a* values) and variation in
lightness (high difference between L* values) were found to predict the
attractiveness of the salad (Fig. 2).
Although all the salad samples had an equal number of ingredients,
87
Food Quality and Preference 76 (2019) 81–90
the attractive salads with high color contrasts were associated with
variety and diversity, whereas the salads with no color contrasts were
assumed to be too simple, to have no complexity, and were conse-
quently assessed as not attractive. Mielby et al. (2012) investigated the
relationship between visual preference and perceived complexity using
fruit and vegetable mixes as visual stimuli. They found color contrast to
have a large effect on the perceived complexity. Mixes with low color
contrast were perceived as less complex than expected according to the
correlation between designed and perceived complexity. In contrast,
mixes with high color contrasts were perceived as more complex than
expected, and complexity was found to be an important parameter for
the appreciation of foods (Mielby et al., 2012). In our study, both col-
orful and pale-colored salads had the same count of ingredients, but the
colorful salads with color contrasts were associated with diversity and
attractiveness, whereas pale-colored salads without color contrasts
were described as boring and without variation.
We found that salads with color differences and complementary
colors were seen as more attractive than salads with no color differ-
ences. According to Schloss and Palmer (2011), color preference ratings
generally increase as hue contrast with the background increases, but
color pairs with highly contrastive hues are generally not preferred.
Unfortunately, relatively little research has been carried out on pre-
ferences for color combinations using realistic stimuli, and no pub-
lications were found about attractiveness and preference for color
combinations in naturally colored food mixes. Deng et al. (2010) have
investigated aesthetic color combinations and used athletic shoes as the
sample material. The results of their studies indicated that people like
combinations of colors that are closely related, whereas colors that
differ greatly in hue or saturation were seldom combined. The incon-
sistency between our results and the results of Deng et al. (2010) can be
assumed to derive from the fact that the sample materials were totally
different. We investigated the colors of foods (pictures of salads) and
Deng et al. (2010) used shoes (athletic shoes on a website) as the
sample material. In salads, the visual attractiveness seemed to be as-
sociated with the arousal potential rather than the visual coherence.
The importance of arousal potential was noted also in the studies by
Deng et al. (2010), where some people liked to use contrastive colors to
highlight some components.
4.3. Other food-related factors impacting visual attractiveness in mixed
salads
In addition to colors, there are many other food-related factors, such
as taste, flavor, texture, size and shape of pieces, etc., that have an
influence on visual attractiveness. In addition, alongside the sensory
properties of food, subjective cognitive, emotional, social, economic,
and cultural factors impact eating behavior (Hernandez Ruiz de Eguilaz
et al., 2018). In real eating situations, there are also plenty of other
factors, from plating and surroundings to the whole context affecting
the overall attractiveness and liking of food. In our study, the partici-
pants rated the samples only by sight, and we designed our experi-
mental setup to focus specifically on colors and color combinations and
their impact on the visual attractiveness of mixed salads. The ideal in
our study design was to use salad components with different colors but
a similar flavor and texture. Unfortunately, such corresponding pairs of
natural salad components could not be found. The liking of some foods
affects liking of the whole meal (Jimenez et al., 2015). Therefore, it was
supposed that the participants’ like/dislike of certain salad components
would influence the rating of the whole salad. In order to focus on
colors and diminish the influence of ingredients, we composed several
different salad pairs with familiar and typical ingredients that were not
expected to be strongly liked or disliked. Although the participant’s
like/dislike of certain ingredients influenced the rating of visual at-
tractiveness of some salad pairs, it did not have an influence on all the
different pairs. In addition, the participants were asked to argue for
their choices in their own words to convey the factors impacting the
M. Paakki, et al.
choice of either the least or the most attractive sample. The following
discussion about the other food-related visual factors is based on these
open-ended responses.
The analysis of the arguments revealed that the most frequently
employed arguments for both the least and the most attractive salad
were either ingredients or appearance. This is in accordance with the
results of our previous interview study in which we investigated the
color-related aesthetic pleasure in food and its meaning for consumers
at a workday lunch (Paakki, Aaltojärvi, Sandell, & Hopia, 2019). From
these interviews, it became apparent that at an ordinary workday lunch
people usually justify their food choices by rational reasons such as
nutritional values or healthiness, etc. Visuality was said to affect food
choices as well, but was often considered at an unconscious level
(Paakki et al., 2019). In this study, the effect of visuality was more
conscious than usual because all the evaluations were based on visual
signals. In addition, all the identifications of ingredients were based on
visual signals.
It was observed that there were some liked ingredients (e.g. pecans
and water melon in salad 3B; grapes and water melon in salad 2B) that
were used as reasons for the choice of the most attractive salad. In
contrast, if one of the salad components was not liked, the entire salad
could be evaluated as unattractive. For example, if the participant did
not like the taste of cauliflower, he/she evaluated all salads with cau-
liflower (salads 4A and 1A) as unattractive. Jimenez et al. (2015) have
found that viewing foods you like makes the entire meal more attractive
compared to viewing foods you dislike. Similarly, in our study, the
liking/disliking of certain ingredients seems to influence the rating of
the visual attractiveness of the whole salad; however, the liking/dis-
liking of ingredients did not entirely explain the ratings of visual at-
tractiveness. It was observed that for every five salad pairs (pale-co-
lored/colorful), the colorful salad was ranked as more attractive than
the pale-colored salad even though the liked/disliked ingredients were
addressed only for some salads. In addition, our previous interview
study pointed out the difficulty of verbalizing the often unconscious
influence of colors and visual aesthetics in lunch food, even if the in-
fluence was considered important (Paakki et al., 2019). In this study,
the participants were asked to argue for their choices with their own
words, and this might have favored ‘easy’ arguments, such as a single
ingredient, over descriptions more difficult to verbalize concerning
abstract matters such as colors and visual aesthetics.
Ingredients and expected taste were used as an argument for both
the least attractive and the most attractive salad. Similarly, the salad’s
appearance was an argument for both choices. A clear difference in
arguments for the pale-colored and the colorful salads was found con-
cerning freshness and variation. The least attractive pale-colored salads
were associated with negative impressions, such as ‘boring’, ‘leathery’
and ‘no variation’, whereas the most attractive colorful salads were
described as being ‘varied’ and ‘fresh’. Because all pairs of pale-colored
and colorful salads were composed of equally fresh components and
had an equal number of ingredients, the only difference concerning
freshness and variation between the salads was the impression of ex-
pected quality generated by the visual signals of the salad.
In our study, the participants seemed not to be strictly oriented
towards only ingredients or appearance, but used arguments relating to
both aspects. Most of the participants (61%) argued for their choice of
the least attractive salad and the most attractive salad differently, with
ingredients, appearance, something else or no argumentation at all.
However, there seem to be minor groups of participants emphasizing
either ingredients (19 participants) or ingredients together with ap-
pearance (12 participants). Men in particular used ingredients as an
argument for their choice. Women seemed to argue for their choices
more holistically by using both ingredients and appearance as an ar-
gument. Gender differences in food perceptions and eating behaviors
have been observed in many previous studies, for example Beardsworth
et al., 2002; Chao et al., 2017; Spence, 2019; Wardle et al., 2004. Chao
et al. (2017) investigated gender differences in neural correlates and
88
Food Quality and Preference 76 (2019) 81–90
discovered that women may be more sensitive or reactive to visual food
cues than men. In addition, it must be noted that open-ended questions
favor verbal participants, and verbalizing the influence of colors and
aesthetics in lunch food was discovered to be quite difficult (Paakki
et al., 2019).
4.4. Further research with colors and color combinations in food
This study has limitations and challenges that future research
should consider. Firstly, in our study, colorfulness and color contrasts
were investigated in only one sample material (mixed salad). However,
there are many other color factors in color combinations that should be
researched, such as color hues, intensities, and harmony between
colors. In addition, future research should investigate the influence of
different food materials; for example, what kind of color combinations
are seen as visually attractive in meat courses? Moreover, the impact of
the surroundings (e.g., plating, setting, etc.), the environment (e.g.,
visual and auditory environments, etc), and the context as whole (e.g.,
workday lunch, fine-dining, social interaction) on the visual attrac-
tiveness of color combinations in food should be investigated. Secondly,
in our study the participants were asked only for the demographic
factors of gender and age. In future research, the impact of personal
characteristics (both physiological and psychological) should be in-
vestigated more profoundly. Thirdly, we considered every perceived
color to be equally important in spite of the different areas of the colors.
In future research, the significance of the areas of the colors and their
proportions as well as the optimal balances between colors should be
investigated. Fourthly, the associations between color combinations
and food attributes, such as healthiness and freshness, should be in-
teresting subjects for future research.
5. Conclusions
The visual signals, especially colors, were found to impact visual
attractiveness because they contribute to the identification of food
components, generate expectations about taste, freshness and quality of
food, and influence the overall attractiveness of appearance.
Colorful compounds and high color contrasts were considered at-
tractive in salad mixes. The most attractive color combinations were
contrasts with the complementary colors red and green or with light
and dark colors. In addition, a great variation in colors was considered
to be attractive. The variation in colors was perceived as diversity, and
intensively colored ingredients were described as fresh and pleasing. In
contrast, salad mixes with pale colors and low color contrasts were
considered boring and to have lost their freshness.
The pleasantness of color combinations in food differs from the
pleasantness of color combinations in general, where generally har-
monious colors with similar color hues are preferred. In our study with
lunch salads, high color contrasts with complementary colors such as
red and green were considered attractive. In addition to drawing at-
tention, these intensive colors and color contrasts enhanced the sensa-
tion of complexity that was considered pleasant in food.
The results of this study can be exploited by restaurants to make
buffets more attractive and tempting. Food with colorful color combi-
nations with high color contrasts would be perceived as more varied
and fresh and consequently more pleasing. However, in addition to
colors and appearance in food, there are other food-related factors
impacting attractiveness, for instance preferring or disliking the taste of
the ingredient. Nevertheless, visual attractiveness could be one possible
way to increase the attractiveness of vegetables, and thereby also their
consumption.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Finnish Cultural Foundation.
M. Paakki, et al. Food Quality and Preference 76 (2019) 81–90

Appendix

See Appendices A and B

Appendix A
Color values (L*, a*, b*) and color dimensions (C*, S+, V*, D*, h*) of the pale-colored salads.
L* sd a* sd b* sd C* sd S+ sd V* sd D* sd h* sd

Salad 1A
iceberg lettuce 76.5 5.10 −12.6 4.73 40.8 6.00 42.8 6.87 48.7 7.43 88.0 4.15 49.0 7.50 −1.28 0.083
cucumber 72.7 6.13 −12.7 1.97 43.3 3.55 45.1 3.77 52.8 3.65 85.6 6.27 53.1 3.73 −1.29 0.033
bell pepper (green) 45.5 5.04 −17.5 1.41 32.4 7.37 36.9 6.76 62.5 9.51 59.0 4.71 66.0 6.60 −1.06 0.095
cauliflower 94.4 2.13 −2.1 1.57 22.2 5.55 22.4 5.62 23.0 5.46 97.1 2.30 23.1 5.66 −1.48 0.058
pine nut 63.5 5.94 5.6 2.64 41.3 4.16 41.8 4.23 55.0 4.68 76.1 5.98 55.8 4.46 1.44 0.062

Salad 2A
iceberg lettuce 80.7 8.11 −12.9 4.24 46.6 5.71 48.5 6.36 51.5 7.57 94.5 6.06 52.6 7.85 −1.31 0.064
pear 83.2 3.93 0.0 2.66 45.4 5.13 45.5 5.10 47.9 4.40 95.0 4.40 48.7 4.91 −0.18 1.509
sweet corn 83.1 4.13 2.2 2.95 72.3 3.26 72.4 3.26 65.7 1.03 110.2 5.05 74.4 2.55 0.84 1.273
grape (light green) 68.2 2.67 −9.1 2.05 59.6 3.21 60.3 3.33 66.2 1.48 91.1 3.88 68.2 2.18 −1.42 0.031

Salad 3A
frisée 62.8 3.76 −21.7 1.15 51.4 3.17 55.8 3.19 66.4 2.48 84.1 4.09 67.2 2.70 −1.17 0.019
lettuce (light) 67.2 4.41 −20.2 1.42 49.7 4.50 53.7 4.43 62.4 3.60 86.1 4.83 63.1 4.12 −1.18 0.031
honeydew melon 75.8 6.37 −9.9 1.52 33.6 4.14 35.0 4.29 42.0 4.77 83.6 6.24 43.0 4.80 −1.28 0.032
pumpkin seed 43.1 6.39 −2.4 1.80 34.7 4.76 34.8 4.85 62.9 6.46 55.6 6.61 67.0 5.28 −1.51 0.042

Salad 4A
napa cabbage 86.6 3.88 −11.6 3.13 51.3 5.17 52.7 5.66 51.9 4.91 101.5 3.51 54.5 5.92 −1.35 0.041
cauliflower 88.0 6.93 −0.2 1.32 28.8 4.22 28.8 4.21 31.2 4.25 92.7 6.97 31.9 4.69 0.18 1.519
pineapple 86.3 3.62 −1.6 1.66 63.3 3.07 63.3 3.03 59.2 1.88 107.0 4.00 64.9 2.72 −0.85 1.291
honeydew melon 91.6 2.45 −6.7 1.70 45.0 5.30 45.5 5.47 44.4 3.91 102.4 3.94 46.4 5.27 −1.43 0.023

Salad 5A
napa cabbage 88.6 2.40 −9.7 2.02 43.3 13.78 44.4 13.78 43.9 12.25 100.0 5.68 46.1 13.06 −1.33 0.071
pear 80.0 7.59 −2.5 2.09 50.4 6.15 50.5 6.09 53.3 4.88 94.7 8.18 54.9 5.58 −0.82 1.275
pea 49.7 5.72 −19.4 3.97 42.6 3.64 46.9 4.70 68.7 2.31 68.3 7.09 69.2 2.20 −1.15 0.057
lettuce (light) 69.8 4.01 −20.4 1.05 51.2 3.49 55.2 3.45 62.0 3.82 89.1 3.05 63.0 4.20 −1.19 0.021

Appendix B
Color values (L*, a*, b*) and color dimensions (C*, S+, V*, D*, h*) of the colorful salads.
L* sd a* sd b* sd C* sd S+ sd V* sd D* sd h* sd

Salad 1B
iceberg lettuce 76.4 4.79 −10.4 3.99 46.0 8.28 47.2 8.81 52.1 7.87 90.1 5.84 53.1 8.42 −1.36 0.058
tomato (red) 52.9 6.22 33.0 3.23 41.5 4.17 53.1 3.80 70.8 5.46 75.2 4.44 71.2 5.73 0.90 0.069
bell pepper (red) 37.2 6.97 36.6 3.87 34.5 6.84 50.6 5.49 80.1 7.39 63.2 5.22 80.8 6.83 0.75 0.119
broccoli 61.4 12.45 −10.8 2.41 43.0 8.82 44.4 8.53 58.7 2.85 75.8 14.82 60.6 3.68 −1.32 0.074
pumpkin seed 49.5 7.26 6.1 3.88 36.9 6.39 37.5 6.83 60.2 5.64 62.2 8.96 63.5 4.92 1.41 0.078

Salad 2B
iceberg lettuce 76.4 6.06 −10.0 4.93 43.3 6.81 44.6 7.69 50.2 9.04 89.0 2.95 50.5 9.29 −1.36 0.077
papaya 50.8 3.72 30.9 5.28 49.7 3.15 58.7 4.50 75.6 2.01 77.6 5.36 76.8 2.58 1.02 0.073
pea 47.6 4.87 −17.3 4.48 41.1 3.41 44.7 4.66 68.5 1.60 65.3 6.58 69.2 1.69 −1.18 0.073
grape (dark red) 24.3 3.46 23.9 2.79 18.8 5.18 30.6 5.04 77.7 5.61 39.2 5.06 81.8 3.15 0.65 0.101

Salad 3B
frisée 50.6 5.04 −16.8 1.59 35.3 2.65 39.1 2.88 61.2 4.31 64.1 4.63 63.1 4.07 −1.13 0.028
lettuce (dark) 54.9 3.73 −16.0 1.68 35.0 2.39 38.5 2.53 57.4 4.15 67.2 2.86 59.4 3.73 −1.14 0.038
watermelon 41.0 6.58 30.6 3.68 32.4 3.74 44.6 4.89 73.4 6.92 60.9 5.46 74.1 6.27 0.81 0.044
pecan 36.3 7.52 13.8 1.78 31.6 1.97 34.5 2.32 69.3 6.64 50.3 6.38 72.6 6.11 1.16 0.038

Salad 4B
napa cabbage 79.5 6.32 −9.8 4.52 44.2 14.11 45.3 14.66 48.7 14.98 92.8 4.23 49.9 15.61 −1.36 0.045
broccoli 67.7 13.33 −12.9 2.01 43.8 5.62 45.7 5.33 56.4 5.12 81.8 13.38 57.5 5.20 −1.28 0.062
peach 72.6 2.93 17.0 3.67 71.8 3.92 73.8 4.47 71.3 1.40 103.5 4.94 78.9 3.34 1.34 0.041
watermelon 54.4 4.49 35.8 4.08 37.0 2.04 51.6 3.97 68.6 4.85 75.1 3.53 68.9 4.74 0.81 0.046

Salad 5B
napa cabbage 87.8 3.47 −8.0 3.00 37.1 13.61 38.0 13.83 38.9 13.31 96.7 3.88 40.1 13.75 −1.36 0.055
papaya 53.1 6.29 26.9 4.44 48.0 6.74 55.3 6.00 72.1 2.53 76.7 8.25 73.0 2.83 1.06 0.100
sweet corn 76.3 9.98 4.9 4.76 66.8 8.93 67.2 8.70 66.1 2.63 101.7 12.74 72.3 5.43 0.79 1.256
lettuce (dark) 54.6 4.37 −16.8 2.43 38.2 6.15 41.7 6.51 60.3 5.48 68.9 6.23 62.0 4.35 −1.15 0.028

89
M. Paakki, et al.
References
Beardsworth, A., Bryman, A., Keil, T., Goode, J., Haslam, C., & Lancashire, E. (2002).
Women, men and food: The significance of gender for nutritional attitudes and
choices. British Food Journal, 104, 470–491.
Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception & Psychophysics,
8(5A), 279–286.
Berns, R. S. (2014). Extending CIELAB: Vividness, V*ab, Depth, D*ab, and Clarity, T*ab.
Color Research & Application, 39(4), 322–330.
Cardello, A. V. (1996). The role of the human senses in food acceptance. In H. I.
Meiselman, & H. J. H. McFie (Eds.). Food choice, acceptance and consumption (pp. 1–
82). London, UK: Blackie A&P, Chapman & Hall.
Chao, A. M., Loughead, J., Bakizada, Z. M., Hopkins, C. M., Geliebter, A., Gur, R. C., &
Wadden, T. A. (2017). Sex/gender differences in neural correlates of food stimuli: A
systematic review of functional neuroimaging studies. Obesity Reviews, 18, 687–699.
Cho, Y. J., Ou, L.-C., & Luo, R. (2017). A cross-cultural comparison of saturation, vivid-
ness, blackness and whiteness scales. Color Research and Application, 42(2), 203–215.
Clydesdale, F. M. (1993). Color as a factor in food choice. Critical Reviews in Food Science,
33, 83–101.
Crozier, W. R. (1999). The meanings of colour: Preferences among hues. Pigment & Resin
Technology, 28(1), 6–14.
Deliza, R., & MacFie, H. J. H. (1996). The generation of sensory expectation by external
cues and its effect on sensory perception and hedonic ratings: A review. Journal of
Sensory Studies, 11, 103–128.
Deng, X., Hui, S. K., & Hutchinson, J. W. (2010). Consumer preferences for color com-
binations: An empirical analysis of similarity-based color relationships. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 20, 476–484.
Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2014). Color Psychology: Effects of perceiving color on
psychological functioning in humans. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 95–120.
Hagtvedt, H., & Brasel, S. A. (2017). Color saturation increases perceived product size.
Journal of Consumer Research, 44, 396–413.
Hasenbeck, A., Cho, S., Meullenet, J.-F., Tokar, T., Yang, F., Huddleston, E. A., & Seo, H.-
S. (2014). Color and illuminance level of lighting can modulate willingness to eat bell
peppers. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 94, 2049–2056.
Hernandez Ruiz de Eguilaz, M., Martinez de Morentin Aldabe, B., Almiron-Roig, E., Pérez-
Diez, S., San Cristóbal Blanco, R., Navas-Carretero, S., & Martinez, J. A. (2018).
Multisensory influence on eating behavior: Hedonic consumption. Endocrinología,
Diabetes y Nutrición, 65(2), 114–125.
Hunt, R., & Pointer, M. (2011). Measuring Colour. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons
Ltd41–72 (4th ed.).
Hurlbert, A., & Ling, Y. (2017). Understanding colour perception and preference. In J.
Best (Ed.). Colour Design; Theories and Applications (pp. 169–192). Duxford, UK:
Woodhead Publishing.
Hutchings, J. B. (1999). Food color and appearance. In A. Chapman (Ed.). Hall Food
Science Book (pp. 1–30). Maryland: An Aspen Publication (2nd ed.).
Hård, A., & Sivik, L. (2001). A theory of colors in combination – A descriptive model
related to the NCS Color-order system. Color Research and Application, 26(1), 4–28.
Imram, N. (1999). The role of visual cues in consumer perception and acceptance of a
food product. Nutrition & Food Science, 99(5), 224–230.
Jimenez, M., Rodriguez, D., Greene, N., Zellner, D. A., Cardello, A. V., & Nestrud, M.
(2015). Seeing a meal is not eating it: Hedonic context effects differ for visually
presented and actually eating foods. Food Quality and Preference, 41, 96–102.
Lawless, H. Y., & Heymann, H. (2010). Sensory evaluation of food, principles and practices.
London: Springer (2nd ed.).
Lee, S. M., Lee, K. T., Lee, S. H., & Song, J. K. (2013). Origin of human colour preference
for food. Journal of Food Engineering, 119(39), 508–515.
León, K., Mery, D., Pedreschi, F., & León, J. (2006). Color measurement in L*a*b* units
from RGB digital images. Food Research International, 39, 1084–1091.
90
Food Quality and Preference 76 (2019) 81–90
Lübbe, E. (2008). Colours in the mind – Colour systems in reality: A formula for colour sa-
turation. Norderstedt: Books on Demand GmbH11–70.
Lübbe, E. (2013). Experimental evidence of the formula of saturation. Journal of Physical
Science and Applications, 3(2), 79–81.
Michel, C., Velasco, C., Gatti, E., & Spence, C. (2014). A taste of Kandinsky: Assessing the
influence of the artistic visual presentation of food on the dining experience. Flavour,
3, 7.
Mielby, L. H., Kildegaard, H., Gabrielsen, G., Edelenbos, M., & Thybo, A. K. (2012).
Adolescent and adult visual preferences of fruit and vegetable mixes – Effect of
complexity. Food Quality and Preference, 26, 188–195.
Paakki, M., Aaltojärvi, I., Sandell, M., & Hopia, A. (2019). The importance of the visual
aesthetics of colours in food at a workday lunch. International Journal of Gastronomy
and Food Science in press.
Palmer, S. E., & Schloss, K. B. (2010). An ecological valence theory of human color
preference. PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of America), 107(19), 8877–8882.
Palmer, S. E., Schloss, K. B., & Sammartino, J. (2013). Visual aesthetics and human
preference. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 77–107.
Pathare, P. B., Opara, U. L., & Al-Said, F. A. J. (2013). Colour measurement and analysis
in fresh and processed foods: A review. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 6(1), 36–60.
Piqueras-Fiszman, B., Alcaide, J., Roura, E., & Spence, C. (2012). Is it the plate or is it the
food? Assessing the influence of the color (black or white) and shape of the plate on
the perception of the food placed on it. Food Quality and Preference, 24, 205–208.
Piqueras-Fiszman, B., Giboreau, A., & Spence, C. (2013). Assessing the influence of the
color of the plate on the perception of a complex food in a restaurant setting. Flavour,
2, 24.
Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2016). The roles of the senses in different stages of consumers’
interactions with food products. In B. Piqueras-Fiszman, & C. Spence (Eds.).
Multisensory flavor perception (pp. 297–312). Duxford, UK: Woodhead Publishing.
Schloss, K. B., & Palmer, S. E. (2011). Aesthetic response to color combinations:
Preference, harmony, and similarity. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 73,
551–571.
Spence, C. (2015). On the psychological impact of food colour. Flavour, 4, 21.
Spence, C. (2018). What is so unappealing about blue food and drink? International
Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 14, 1–8.
Spence, C. (2019). Do men and women really live in different taste worlds? Food Quality
and Preference, 73, 38–45.
Stewart, P. C., & Goss, E. (2013). Plate shape and colour interact to influence taste and
quality judgments. Flavour, 2, 27.
Stroebele, N., & De Castro, J. M. (2004). Effect of ambience on food intake and food
choice, Review article. Nutrition, 20, 821–838.
Tuomi, J., & Sarajärvi, A. (2009). Laadullinen tutkimus ja sisällönanalyysi [Qualitative
analysis and content analysis]. Helsinki: Tammi.
Wadhera, D., & Capaldi-Phillips, E. D. (2014). A review of visual cues associated with
food on food acceptance and consumption. Eating Behaviors, 15, 132–143.
Walsh, L. M., Toma, R. B., Tuveson, R. V., & Sondhi, L. (1990). Color preference and food
choice among children. The Journal of Psychology, 124, 645–653.
Wardle, J., Haase, A. M., Steptoe, A., Nillapun, M., Jonwutiwes, K., & Bellisle, F. (2004).
Gender differences in food choice: The contribution of health beliefs and dieting.
Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 27, 107–116.
Wu, D., & Sun, D.-W. (2013). Colour measurements by computer vision for food quality
control – A review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 29, 5–20.
Zellner, D. A., Lankford, M., Ambrose, L., & Locher, P. (2010). Art on the plate: Effect of
balance and color on attractiveness of, willingness to try and liking for food. Food
Quality and Preference, 21, 575–578.
Zellner, D. A., Loss, C. R., Zearfoss, J., & Remolina, S. (2014). It tastes as good as it looks!
The effect of food presentation on liking for the flavor of food. Appetite, 77C, 31–35.